Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you took the same amount of money an contributed it to a pension fund, YOU now have an asset, not the federal government. YOU control it, YOU profit from it, YOUR estate gets it if you die.. Not the government.
Pensions and trust funds pay a much greater return individuals who pay into them rather than social security. You can put the exact same amount of money into retirement funds as you do with social security, and your returns are far greater, and you dont give them up in the event you die early.
Okay, I'll take your word for it. But what about those people who couldn't afford to set up a substantial pension/trust fund? What should happen to them when they get older? While everyone has the potential, not everyone gets to be upper middle class or rich in life. Something should be done for those people.
Okay, I'll take your word for it. But what about those people who couldn't afford to set up a substantial pension/trust fund? What should happen to them when they get older? While everyone has the potential, not everyone gets to be upper middle class or rich in life. Something should be done for those people.
That is why SS was created, specifically for that purpose.
But it's been "reformed" (bastardized) over the years to include more and more people, people who don't work and are not retired.
First reform. There's $3 billion a month in SS money going to children.
Get the kids out of SS..that is not the program for them.
For the past 3 years under Obama and 2 years under Bush taxes have remained the same while unemployment has risen. For the past 2 years, corporate profits have risen yet companies still have not employed people, they have kept the profits and given it to their shareholders. A service economy depends on money being put into circulation.
So if I buy something from a major company, and if that company takes that money I spent, and puts it back into the economy via of hiring a worker AND paying him a decent salary with the money they received from me, and then that worker spends the money, all is good. However, in the past 3 years companies have decided to stop that cycle. By refusing to hire workers and keeping that money for themselves in the form of profits, you have now taken that money out of circulation.
Does anyone remember when this whole mess started the three major news networks did the little stories on how dollars get circulated from person to person and small business, etc?
That's the problem. There is less money in circulation now than 5 years ago. The government didn't take it because they haven't raised taxes. Workers haven't taken it because income levels haven't risen. It was taken by companies, top executives, and banks. That's what the earnings report stated last week, that the average worker salary did not increase at all, while those of CEO's did and by a heck of a lot. According to news sources, CEO pay went up an average of 23 percent in 2010, while wages for rest of us rose a meager one-half-percent, according to a new report prepared for the New York Times. And how do they do this? A USA Today analysis of corporate filings through early July shows CEOs reaping huge 2011 payouts, largely due to stock option valuations up sharply from pre-recession levels. So companies are in fact making in most cases more profits and generating more money now than they did BEFORE the recession hit. Yet they still refuse to put money into circulation and hire workers. And how do they get away with this? Well once companies destroyed unions and states outlawed the practice of creating unions people do not go out on strike. Companies are now free to exploit the workers. In most cases workers are no better off now then they were at the beginning of the 20th century. Look at it from a company perspective: Why should a company pay a new person when they can squeeze more out of the workers they already have? They know the worker won't quit because the job situation is so bad. And if they do quit, a company can hire someone new who is so desparate for a job that they are willing to take less than the guy they just fired. That's what unions were created to prevent. And now wages for workers have dropped, and where did that money go? Not back into the economy, it went to CEO pockets. I have a brother in law who is a CEO of a semi-large company, he goes to seminiars were they are taught this. This is the model that companies are following right now.
History is repeating itself. Someone above mentioned how bad off the south was. The south before the civil war did the same thing. The rich plantation owners who made up less than 1% of the population made 90% of the wealth. They took that wealth and never invested it back into the community. There were no taxes so the south had no services, no education, no transportation network, no industry, etc. What was the result? You had a large poor white population living along side slaves where there was no industry, no jobs, no education, and no way out unless you moved to the north. After the war and reconstruction what happened when the north left, the plantation owners picked up right were they left off and instituted share cropping which put poor people in debt forever. The wealthy kept all their wealth, never put anything back into the community and cycle continued again until WWII. Look at the 1950s probably one of the strongest economic times we had. Companies were active in putting war profits they earned back into the country via hiring workers and paying taxes.
Well what does a country do? How do you force a company to hire workers or at the least put the money it earns back into circulation for the good of the country? Don't point the finger at the government about this. Government really hasn't done all that much and there is not much the government can do in this situation. For all the complaining and bickering that is going on about Obama he really has not done anything differently then Bush did except enact a watered down version of a Republican health care plan introduced about 15 years ago.
“The biggest corporation, like the humblest private citizen, must be held to strict compliance with the will of the people.” Theodore Roosevelt, 1900.
“Corporation, n., An ingenious device for obtaining profit without individual responsibility.” Ambrose Bierce, 1906.
“I have always recognized that the object of business is to make money in an honorable manner. I have endeavored to remember that the object of life is to do good.” Peter Cooper, 1874.
That's what I've been saying all along. The recession began in December 2007, bottomed in March 2009, and has been skidding along bottom ever since. Things are no better now than they were in March 2009, I don't care if the Dow is at 12,000. We are in an "L" shaped recession. Now the question is, have we really bottomed, or is there going to be another leg down. I fear we are fast approaching a complete collapse that will end our society into complete chaos. Take a look at whats happening in Greece.
We are now in the 43rd month of recession.
When the GDP hits $3.6 trillion a year (2010 dollars) we will see the light at the end of the tunnel.
Okay, I'll take your word for it. But what about those people who couldn't afford to set up a substantial pension/trust fund? What should happen to them when they get older? While everyone has the potential, not everyone gets to be upper middle class or rich in life. Something should be done for those people.
But there is no need to take my word for it
The ONLY people that come out ahead with social security are those who are disabled, etc and thats what welfare is for.
In your case that's exactly what SS was supposed to do for you..provide you with a supplemental income stream.
SS needs to be looked at and reformed. It was expanded over the years and now includes people who have not worked and are not retired..like kids for example (nearly $3 billion per month is paid out to children from SS).
I'm of the opinion that if you put into SS then you are entitled to get back your money that the government took from you and told you they would invest (not spend) and give back to you when you retired.
agree with that.
the government should not have made promises that it could or would not keep, and this is happening all over the world-thus the riots.
And the top economists grasp for reasons why their projections were so off. If you wish it hard enough and predict it..maybe it might happen ?
Economists Cite Seasonal Variations for Jobs Miss - Bloomberg
"Not a single economist among 85 surveyed by Bloomberg News correctly forecast the 18,000 increase in payrolls in June reported by the Labor Department. Estimates ranged from a low of 60,000 to a high of 175,000. The median was 105,000 -- almost six times the actual number.
..
“There wasn’t any quirk that we knew about,” said Robert Brusca, president of Fact & Opinion Economics in New York, whose forecast for a 60,000 gain in payrolls was the most accurate. “People were digging everywhere to predict better growth. If there were something technical we would’ve picked it up.”
In your case that's exactly what SS was supposed to do for you..provide you with a supplemental income stream.
SS needs to be looked at and reformed. It was expanded over the years and now includes people who have not worked and are not retired..like kids for example (nearly $3 billion per month is paid out to children from SS).
I'm of the opinion that if you put into SS then you are entitled to get back your money that the government took from you and told you they would invest (not spend) and give back to you when you retired.
Now? SS has long paid out widow's benefits, kid's benefits, etc. My aunt got SS for her kids back in the 50s as a widow.
Now? SS has long paid out widow's benefits, kid's benefits, etc. My aunt got SS for her kids back in the 50s as a widow.
I know a liberal who brags who he is still working at a high income job and is also receiving social security benefits and also gets extra because he chose to start a second family and have children in his 60s.
I know a liberal who brags who he is still working at a high income job and is also receiving social security benefits and also gets extra because he chose to start a second family and have children in his 60s.
Yes..those kids now qualify for SS checks each and every month.
As I said, they "reformed" SS to include more yet never gave a thought as how to fund it.
SS does not just include widows and orphans anymore. Some folks need to get up on current events with the changes made to SS over the years.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
